Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A11600
|
The ministers portion· By William Sclater. Batchelar of Diuinity and minister of the word of God at Pitmister in Somerset
|
Sclater, William, 1575-1626.
|
1612
(1612)
|
STC 21841; ESTC S116822
|
29,708
|
56
|
THE MINISTERS PORTION BY WILLIAM SCLATER BATCHELAR OF DIVINITY and Minister of the word of God at PITMISTER in Somerset AC OX AT OXFORD Printed by Ioseph Barnes 1612 TO THE WORSHIPFVLL Mr THOMAS SOVTHCOT ESQVIRE at MOONES-OTERY in Devon grace and peace SIR when I first meditated what at your instance I revised and now almost enforced publish I expected cōtradictions from Mammonistes and scarse hoped to perswade men savouring of better things Such a holdfast is covetousnes so incredulous is preiudice Farther opposition from brethren and Iudicious men was as farre from my thought as I am in this point from their opinion But Austin saith wel Aug. cont Advers leg prophet li. 1. c. 2◠Deus donat prodesse nobis non solûm quod docet veritas verùm etiā quod obstrepit vanitas And such opposings against truth are thus farre for it that they occasion more intentiue search and clearer discovery of the truth My purpose is not to prescribe to any mans faith Nam quis ego sum Even the least of Gods little ones Yet as one that hath obtained mercy of God to be faithfull let me entreat this favour from men to be heard on even termes with mē I freely confesse of far greater gifts yet as I thinke having no such evidence in this point to carry away so hādsmooth a conclusion of such dependance This I hope will appeare to any impartiall reader that the reasons here brought for tythes are much nearer to demōstratiue thē those against them are to probable arguments My poore paines I haue inscribed to your worship as for many your well deservings of me and the Church of God so for that you first vrged a review of the first rude draught and haue given me so manie occasions to thinke you will not be the last in practising this vnprofitable profitable conclusion when once your Iudgement shal bee convinced And though I loue not to bee peremptory for I know mine owne blindnes yet this I thinke I may say the reasons on both sides being peized in even ballance there will scarce be left place for an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or suspense of Iudgment except men be resolute to hold their conclusion in despight of all contrary premises Now the God of all truth direct our hearts to the knowledge and loue and obedience of the truth And the same God that begun his good worke in you confirme and perfect it to the day of our Lorde Iesus Christ Amen Your worships in the truest loue WILLIAM SCLATER 1. Cor. 9.13 14. Do yee not know that they which minister about the holy things liue of the things of the Temple and they which wait at the Altar are partakers with the Altar Evē so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospell should liue of the Gospell THis whole period of Scripture from ver 5. to 15. consists of one discrete axiome in summe this Though I Paule haue power and right to liue at the charge of the Church ver 5. yet I haue not vsed that power ver 12. the reason whereof he giues Least hee should hinder the Gospell of Christ through suspicion of mercenary Affection in preaching Now for that it might be questioned whether he had any such right or no hee avowes the truth of his title by arguments à genere he was an Apostle preacher of the Gospell ver 1. Ergo had right 2. prevētingly à pari in the practise of others ver 5.6 as well as Peter c. And for that the claime might not seeme equall betwixt Paule and Cephas and the Lords brethren he sheweth that to every minister of the Gospell maintenance is due for their worke sake By reasons 1. From voice of nature and consent of nations in other semblant imployments as who goes to war c. ver 7. 2. From mandate of the law of God Saith not the law of God the same c. ver 8.9.10 3. From excellency of blessings conferred by Ministers cōpared with qualitie of things exacted for recompence If we sowe spirituall things c. ver 11. 4. From allowed practise of Leviticall ministery ver 13. Lastly from expresse ordinance of Christ the Lord hath ordained c. ver 14. this the frame of the text Out of all which amounts this plaine Apostolicall conclusion That maintenance is due from people to Ministers for their worke sake Other proofes then are here set downe it is needlesse to vse Wee haue here more then two or three witnesses fiue sound reasons inforcing it The bare word of an Apostle is enough to carry a point more doubtfull How much more should it sway with vs when Gods spirit that spake in them is pleased by so many reasons to avouch it Is it not then a sound tenēt trow we of some that Ministers maintenance is meer almes and that in iustice and as due they can challenge nothing for their labour in the word and doctrine 1 Where then is Paules 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his right lawful power and authoritie to receaue maintenance from the people v. 4 2 How saith our Saviour they are worthie of their hire a Luk 9 7. Paule worthy of double honour b 1. Tim 5.17 3 What great thing was this that Paule did in taking no maintenance ver 12.15 By these mens divinitie he had right to none 2 And what ods is there betwixt this beggerly conclusion of those old beggers and that of late separats that make it Christs ordinance for Ministers to liue of their peoples voluntary contribution and hold it as Christs owne Canon that no set maintenance shoulde be allotted vs no not by humane ordinance but the people left at liberty to giue or not to giue to giue much or little otherwise then selfe devotion shall incline them May I not say of this and the former as Ioseph of Pharaos dreames c Gen 41.25 the dreames are one Words onely haue made a variation Ministers must liue of the peoples voluntary contribution me thinkes I heare St Pauls tenour for almes d 2. Cor. 9.7 As every man wisheth in his heart so let him giue Their reasons had need be pregnāt let vs view them 1. Forsooth the Apostles thus lived Resp J yeeld it of some of them yea sometimes made their own hands minister to their necessities why force they vs not to mechanicall trades For so lived some Apostles But 1 they had power to exact maintenance sith they had right e 1. Cor. 9.4 5 to haue it 2 Occasionall practise binds not to imitation but in occurrence of like occasions When scandall inforceth to forbeare exaction we will herein follow their holy example least by any meanes we hinder the Gospell ver 12. and farther then this their example vrgeth not Their second reason is this because it must be seene that what the people giue this way they giue of loue not for feare of the law Resp and it must bee seene
14. How then sinned Achab b 1. Reg 21.1 2 3. in coveting the vineyard of Naboth And desiring to purchase it with mony Yea why offers he mony or deales by way of contract It was his ius being a king to take vineyards fields from subiects to giue to his servāts much more to keepe for his owne benefit and conveniency 3. Alienation of possessions from tribes and families was flatly forbidden to the Iewish people that Christs linage and descent might bee kept vnconfounded 2 But what when it is yeelded hee had a tus to exact tithes of subiects Must it needs be vnderstood of tithes of Levits assigned them of God and not rather of other tithes which he might craue in subsidium as c Gen. 47.24 fifts were once imposed vpon Egyptians Certainely Ezechias it seemes thought tithes the Levits due and therfore amongst other precepts of reformation 2. par 31. 4. 5. 6 requires their paiment to Levi as thinking tithes committed to him if at all to him but as Church goods of old were vnto Bishops non ut dominis but ut oeconomis And the people bring thē to Levites in the name of holy things that were consecrated vnto God Apostles received not tithes in their daies Ergo. Resp That is hard that I say not impossible to proue 2. not tithes no nor ought els of some churches but made their owne hands minister to their necessities that they might not be scandalous to weake brethren nor chargable to afflicted churches 3. yea suffered bonds reproches cruell deaths c. must therefore the Churches of all ages receiue like measure from her children 4 The question is de iure non de facto that ius was remitted because burthensome to those times as circumcision was in the wildernes Ioshua 5.5.6 If tithes be thus due to Ministers why not also first fruits for these also were commanded to be paid to Levits Resp To these and all arguments following this generall answere may serue that wee claime not tithes by vertue of the precept given for Levites Who ever heard vs thus reason God cōmanded tithes to be paide to Levites Ergo tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospell But thus we claime them as due to God by reservation from the beginning as following Christs priesthood as the only certainety mentioned in scripture as consecrated to God by consent of Churches Edicts of princes as agreeing with the vse and practise of the Church in al times For the mandate of God cōcerning Levi we make it not the ground of our title to tithes So that of these reasons we may say as he they are Nihil ad Rhombum Yet that nothing be wanting to anie mans satisfaction I answer 1. that first fruits were paid to Aaron d Heb. 7 11 as to high priest whose priesthood is now passed to another 2. vpon a reason particular to that people 3. for sacrifice as appeares at large De◠26. 2. ad 11. appeares there any such thing of Tithes Lastly they were figures as should seeme of Christ e 1 Cor 15.20 The first fruits of them that sleepe of beginnings of sanctification called by the Apostle f Rom. 8.23 the first fruits of the spirit Can any of these be avouched of tithes Who thē sees not manifest disparity betweene the two If this be a duty of people to pay tithes to Ministers thē that also of Ministers to g Num. 18.28 pay tithes to the high Priest Resp The argument proceedes from a false Hypothesis supposing vs to claime tithes by mandate Leviticall Which we vtterly disclaime vt supra 2. But yet farther I answere It followes not if one then the other due 1. For h Ps 50 12.13 that our high Priest needs them not but only hath ordained for them that i 1. Cor 9.14 preach the gospel 2. Sacrifices are now ceased to which these Decimae secūdaneae chiefly served k Num. 18.28 29.30 so that their reason is no more but this If tithes for stipend then tithes for sacrifice he is meerely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that discernes not the inconsequence If precept of tithing be moral thē that also of l Mal. 3 10. bringing them to one common storehouse Resp This argumēt also proceedeth from like fained Hypothesis see supra yet hath no good cōsequence for must the substance of a duty needs be Levitical because some circūstances thereof concern only Iewish nation Thē must Sabbath also evē for substance be ceremoniall because some circumstances ends belong only to Iews Deut. 5.15 If precept of tithes be moral then that also of Ministers not m Num. 18.24 having portiō amongst their brethrē Resp The same fallacy that before for we claime not by precept given to Levi. And yet the argument follows not 1. for saith Polanus though I avow not his answere that ordinance was figuratiue Polan in Ezech 44. v. 28. foreshaddowing Christ that had not where to lay his head But 2 it was never forbidden Levits to haue portion amongst their brethren in that sense that these men take portion They n Numb 35. Levit. 25.34 Had citties with their suburbs which were their perpetuall possession and passed from father to sonne subiect to same lawes of Redemption as others Wherefore Ieremie a Priestes sonne o Ier. 32.7.9 buies the fielde of his vnckle as next of kin See also 1. King 2.26 Thus therfore vnderstād that ordinance of Levits having no portion amongst their brethren No portion that is no such portion separate frō their brethren as had other tribes not simply none the Reason thereof was Iacobs prophecy p Gen. 49.7 touching their scattering amongst their brethren Disposed of also by Gods providence for greater conveniency of the peoples instruction as also by situation of their citties in q Iosh 21. every tribe is me thinks probable Lastly a manifest disparity there is between the two For the childrē of Levits succeeded their parēts were for ever to be maintained by Levits portiō Not so the childrē of Ministers except they be r 1. Tim. 3. Titus 1. approved foūd meet for the ministery Lastly they obiect the place Numb 18.24 vnanswerable as they thinke and such as if a man but turne to with a wet finger he shall presently see tithing a ceremonious ordinance Now for my part I haue viewed the place and with my best attention considered what may thence be deduced to proue it ceremoniall Yet finde not that it concludes either the ordinance in generall or yet that Leviticall constitution to haue beene ceremonious for thus wee must frame the Argument If tithes were assigned to Levi for his service in the tabernacle then is the ordinance of tithing meerely ceremonious for that service was ceremoniall But tithes were assigned to Levi for his service in the tabernacle Ergo. Resp 1. To say nothing that that particular assignement concludes not the